How long until the inevitable "Brazile to gavel in the DNCC" story emerges? Over/under: 1 hour.
7:48 AM - 25 Jul 2016 (https://twitter.com/EdMorrissey/status/757588379642896384)

</twitterwidget>
It only took 48 minutes after this tweet for The Hill to notice (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289071-dems-pressure-wasserman-schultz-to-abandon-convention-role) that Team Hillary seems to be signaling Wasserman Schultz — frantically:

Allies of Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) think Debbie Wasserman Schultz should remove herself completely from the Democratic National Convention, fearing that even the minor role she is set to play has become too much of a distraction.

Wasserman Schultz abruptly resigned as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Sunday, amid an outcry over leaked emails that showed the DNC scheming against Sen. Bernie Sanders (http://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders). In her resignation announcement, Wasserman Schultz said she would stay on as chairwoman through this week’s convention in Philadelphia, delivering opening and closing remarks.

But even such a limited role is too much at this point, Clinton allies say.

One ally pointed to the response Wasserman Schultz received at her home-state Florida delegation Monday morning, where she strained to be heard (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289059-wasserman-schultz-booed-off-stage-in-philadelphia)over a chorus of protests and boos. As she spoke, people stood on chairs holding up signs that said “emails,” “No!,” and “Thanks for the ‘help,’ Debbie.” Others repeatedly shouted: “Shame.”

“It’s causing the distraction no one wanted at the convention,” one ally said.

Not all of the allies are nameless, either. Here’s former DNC chair and longtime Hillary backer (http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/01/report_rendell_to_endorse_hill.html)Ed Rendell on Morning Joe telling the panel that “it’s wrong (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ed-rendell-says-dnc-chair-shouldnt-take-the-stage-at-democratic-convention/)” to put Wasserman Schultz on the stage. Pick it up at the 3:40 mark, warning her that it’s “for her own good” to stay away:

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who was once DNC chairman himself, said Monday he doesn’t see the merit in allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to gavel in the party’s convention amid an email scandal that has rocked the hearts of Bernie Sanders supporters.

“It’s wrong for her and it’s wrong for us,” Rendell said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about allowing Wasserman Schultz even a minimal role after she submitted her official resignation on Sunday.

If that’s too subtle, perhaps Team Hillary chief John Podesta might have made it a little more clear (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289062-clinton-aide-were-moving-on-from-wasserman-schultz) on the same show, emphasis mine:

“It’s best for Hillary Clinton that we have a new chair of the party,” he said.

Podesta said Wasserman Schultz can still play a role in helping Clinton win the Oval Office.

Clearly she’s not welcome in Philadelphia … or even in her home state of Florida. While Podesta also said that “she has the right to … open the convention,” he followed it up by saying, “I think that was her choice … I think we’re moving on.” That’s not exactly a rousing endorsement.

So how much longer will it take before someone on Hillary’s campaign takes that choice away from her? It’s not possible that she’ll actually take the stage so that over 1800 delegates can boo her in front of a national audience, is it? Is it? Because what’s coming (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/chaos-erupts-as-wasserman-schultz-speaks-to-florida-delegates-226113) is clear to everyone else:

Chris Riker, a pro-Sanders delegate from Miami’s 24th district waving a Bernie sign and shouting, said all delegates received an email that Wasserman Schultz would be speaking Monday.

“Honestly it’s their fault that this happened. There is absolutely no reason that a day after rightfully resigning in disgrace with the quote ‘Bernie Sanders will not be president’ leaked from an email that she should be addressing the delegates,” Riker said. “It’s bad for the party, it looks biased and quite frankly it looks tone-deaf.”

“I will literally boo anytime she’s involved in the convention because she shouldn’t be involved,” Riker added, remarking that the emails confirmed the chairwoman’s “biased conduct” and the state party made a poor decision in having her speak.

Hillary may be a bad candidate, but no campaign would be this inept. Not even in our fevered dreams. Right?

jimnyc

07-25-2016, 12:40 PM

What can possibly be better to followup her email fiasco - with another email fiasco!

Following a Republican nominating convention that was marred by bizarre scheduling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/14/the-very-odd-list-of-speakers-at-the-republican-national-convention/), leaks (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288808-leaked-trump-speech-came-from-republican-source-report) to Democratic operatives, chaos (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-and-chaos/), and disunion (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/tex-cruz-dissent-unravels-trump-gop/), the bar for relative success at the Democratic convention the following week was set pretty low. With the wounds from the primary process appearing, at least superficially, to have healed, Democrats were set to strike a favorable contrast to the GOP with a largely uneventful coronation and a display of common purpose. That would have been an illusion. As WikiLeaks demonstrated this week with the release of a series of covertly obtained emails from the Democratic National Committee, the appearance of party unity was only ever just that: appearance.

Of the nearly 20,000 emails released by WikiLeaks, many of them contain delicate communications from seven key DNC employees. The emails contradict Democratic claims that no sensitive information was exposed by the initial hack in Kaine’s selection as Clinton’s vice presidential nominee will not achieve the sorely needed unification of the Democrat Party.

Kaine has castigated opponents of free trade agreements as “losers,” and strongly supported the war in Iraq.

Kaine supported the 1994 Clinton crime bill which Hillary Clinton partially blames for the “era of mass incarceration,” voiced strong opposition to gay marriage and casts himself as a “pro-life” politician who supports a ban on partial birth abortion.

On energy and taxes, Kaine supports offshore drilling and clean coal and signed the complete repeal of the Virginia’s estate tax.
Despite opposition from organized labor, Kaine supports Virginia’s Right to Work law.

The criticism doesn’t stop there, with the Republican Party castigating Kaine for being a fan of free trade and against taxes:

In 2007, Kaine Attacked Opponents Of NAFTA And CAFTA, Saying “This Is Something I Feel Really Passionate About.” “Without identifying him, Kaine cited the views of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who was quoted in the New York Times last year as saying of free-trade agreements: ‘I was a critic of NAFTA, I was a critic of CAFTA and I’ll be a critic of SHAFTA.’ ‘I always laugh when I hear that, but I really think that it’s wrong,’ Kaine said. ‘This is something I feel really passionate about.'” (Scott Lanman, “Virginia’s Kaine Warns Democrats Protectionism Is A ‘Loser,'” Bloomberg, 5/30/07)

In 2007, Kaine Signed An Estate Tax Repeal. “Rich and poor alike will benefit from changes in Virginia’s tax laws. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine symbolically signed into law yesterday a measure that will remove about 140,000 low-income people from the tax rolls by raising the filing threshold, beginning in the 2008 tax year. And, as of Sunday, the tax on larger estates in Virginia was repealed. The repeal legislation was passed by the General Assembly last year but did not take effect until July 1 this year.” (Tyler Whitley, “Kaine Signs Measure For Low-Income Tax Break,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 7/4/07)

The GOP’s second piece included comments (https://www.gop.com/what-they-are-saying-kaines-selection-already-angering-progressives/) from The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Slate’s Nora Caplan-Bricker, The Bernie Delegates Network, and Democracy For America which were all negative of the Kaine pick. It’s pretty obvious the Republican Party is trying to shift focus away from its own issue of disunity and put the spotlight on the fact the Democrats are just as fractured, if not more. Based on how the DNC Rules Committee went, the GOP may have a point. Via the Pro-Sanders website U.S. Uncut: (http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-rules-committee-superdelegates/)

Bruce Jacobs, an attorney and Sanders delegate from Miami, Florida, told US Uncut that animosity between Sanders delegates and establishment Democrats was palpable after the superdelegate votes, and that this fight is just the beginning.
“We just kept going back up and going back up and going back up, and every vote was coming up with Bernie delegates as yes, and Hillary delegates as no, and it was like that every time,” Jacobs said. “Either Hillary Clinton is going to offer an olive branch and we’ll do something that everyone is going to vote for, or their answer is going to be ‘fall in line and be happy about it.’ And that’s not going to work for Bernie’s campaign.”

Sanders delegates were also apparently removed from the room, before being escorted out of the area entirely.

...

Finally, the source of these email leaks should disturb all Americans of every political stripe. These emails, laundered through WikiLeaks, were likely obtained by Russian intelligence operatives in June. “The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said,” the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html) reported at the time. It is no coincidence that only a handful of these communications specifically related to Democrats were released on the eve of a Democratic nominating convention. This has the appearance of a foreign power directly interfering in an American election, and that’s not something to take lightly.
...

jimnyc

07-25-2016, 01:59 PM

If anything leaked was illegal, or unethical, or stuff about trying to "steal" the election, rig things... Well, then sucks to be Hillary. Talk about Karma.

Bilgerat

07-25-2016, 02:01 PM

I'm actually surprised that the DNC wants to ride this pony.

If the Russkies got this info from a "protected" server, what info have they received from the Hildabeasts virtually unprotected servers?

If this ever gets asked, I'll bet that the DNC will shut down any further questions :laugh2:

Kathianne

07-25-2016, 02:03 PM

I'm actually surprised that the DNC wants to ride this pony.

If the Russkies got this info from a "protected" server, what info have they received from the Hildabeasts virtually unprotected servers?

If this ever gets asked, I'll bet that the DNC will shut down any further questions :laugh2:

and there's that.

OTOH, both parties and dirty tricks is nothing new. I for one am sick of both parties, but well I try to hide it. ;)

Russ

07-25-2016, 02:32 PM

This is like Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary with Monica Lewinsky, and when Hillary confronts him with it, instead of saying "That's not true" he just says "Who told you that?" If the Dems don't argue about the emails but just question where they came from, they are just flat out admitting their guilt.

jimnyc

07-25-2016, 02:43 PM

This is like Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary with Monica Lewinsky, and when Hillary confronts him with it, instead of saying "That's not true" he just says "Who told you that?" If the Dems don't argue about the emails but just question where they came from, they are just flat out admitting their guilt.

Billy Boy!!

http://i.imgur.com/DGXwVOz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/aMSy2IF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dQwbhcS.jpg

Kathianne

07-25-2016, 02:58 PM

This is like Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary with Monica Lewinsky, and when Hillary confronts him with it, instead of saying "That's not true" he just says "Who told you that?" If the Dems don't argue about the emails but just question where they came from, they are just flat out admitting their guilt.

I see your point, but do think it's important if Russia is attempting to influence our elections. Doesn't matter if it were for one side or another. In actuality it's likely at some point that they also will release from RNC, equally likely to have found things that will embarrass those elites too.

For the record, these wikileaks have zero to do with the Clinton email scandal, which wasn't politics, rather a crime that put our security in jeopardy.

Russ

07-25-2016, 03:50 PM

Billy Boy!!

http://i.imgur.com/DGXwVOz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/aMSy2IF.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dQwbhcS.jpg

That is hilarious! :laugh:

Russ

07-25-2016, 04:04 PM

I see your point, but do think it's important if Russia is attempting to influence our elections. Doesn't matter if it were for one side or another. In actuality it's likely at some point that they also will release from RNC, equally likely to have found things that will embarrass those elites too.

For the record, these wikileaks have zero to do with the Clinton email scandal, which wasn't politics, rather a crime that put our security in jeopardy.

Yes, if it is Russia then I don't want Russia trying to fix our elections, but then again even if Russia hacked these emails, they didn't write these emails. So it's not quite the same.

And of course there is slim to none evidence that the emails were hacked by Russia - it is just dust being through up by Hillary's team. Wikileaks doesn't even admit they came from Guccifer 2.0, and even if they did there is only vague evidence that he is either Russian or Eastern European, and no evidence that he is part of the government of any of those countries.

Black Diamond

07-25-2016, 04:06 PM

Yes, if it is Russia then I don't want Russia trying to fix our elections, but then again even if Russia hacked these emails, they didn't write these emails. So it's not quite the same.

And of course there is slim to none evidence that the emails were hacked by Russia - it is just dust being through up by Hillary's team. Wikileaks doesn't even admit they came from Guccifer 2.0, and even if they did there is only vague evidence that he is either Russian or Eastern European, and no evidence that he is part of the government of any of those countries.

Can you comment on Krauthammer's theory?

Gunny

07-25-2016, 04:16 PM

Can you comment on Krauthammer's theory?

From a common sense point of view? What would Putin have to gain? He's trampled all over Obama and will do the same to Hillary. What does he get out of someone with balls and unpredictable being in the WH?

Putin may like Trump for whatever reason but he's got an end game to it.

If Hillary's e-mails got leaked it starts with HER.

jimnyc

07-25-2016, 04:38 PM

Yes, if it is Russia then I don't want Russia trying to fix our elections, but then again even if Russia hacked these emails, they didn't write these emails. So it's not quite the same.

And of course there is slim to none evidence that the emails were hacked by Russia - it is just dust being through up by Hillary's team. Wikileaks doesn't even admit they came from Guccifer 2.0, and even if they did there is only vague evidence that he is either Russian or Eastern European, and no evidence that he is part of the government of any of those countries.

That's how I feel. I don't tryst ANYTHING coming from them. Could be one of their own, and they use this as a cover, who knows. If legit, our tech pros better get crackin and make sure we're on the upper end of the tech world.

But as to the content, KARMA, that's what happens when you try to rig the election.

Gunny

07-25-2016, 04:55 PM

That's how I feel. I don't tryst ANYTHING coming from them. Could be one of their own, and they use this as a cover, who knows. If legit, our tech pros better get crackin and make sure we're on the upper end of the tech world.

But as to the content, KARMA, that's what happens when you try to rig the election.

That was my next best guess. I just responded before thinking it all the way through. A typical ruse. Let's blame Putin for my crimes. :rolleyes: Notice how with the Clintons it's ALWAYS someone else's fault?

Kathianne

07-25-2016, 05:13 PM

Yes, if it is Russia then I don't want Russia trying to fix our elections, but then again even if Russia hacked these emails, they didn't write these emails. So it's not quite the same.

And of course there is slim to none evidence that the emails were hacked by Russia - it is just dust being through up by Hillary's team. Wikileaks doesn't even admit they came from Guccifer 2.0, and even if they did there is only vague evidence that he is either Russian or Eastern European, and no evidence that he is part of the government of any of those countries.

It was reported months ago that the DNC email system had been hacked for a long time. This isn't new. About the bolded, he was extradited from Romania.

I want to make something clear, I don't think TRUMP had anything to do with the release. The emails were under wiki control and whomever Assange gave them to.

Gunny

07-25-2016, 05:24 PM

It was reported months ago that the DNC email system had been hacked for a long time. This isn't new. About the bolded, he was extradited from Romania.

I want to make something clear, I don't think TRUMP had anything to do with the release. The emails were under wiki control and whomever Assange gave them to.

It's not all that hard to hack a private server. That's why I find Hillary's conduct inexcusable. She's supposed to be brilliant? At lying maybe. Yet she can't follow a simple construct that E-3s do every day?

And anyone wants Ms Leakapedia having the highest office in our nation? :cuckoo: I try to stay away from just blanket calling folks stupid, but anyone that votes for her is just stupid.

Russ

07-26-2016, 07:14 AM

It was reported months ago that the DNC email system had been hacked for a long time. This isn't new. About the bolded, he was extradited from Romania.

Just to clarify, my comments were about Guccifer 2.0, about whom almost nothing is known. This hacker modeled his/her name after Guccifer 1.0, who is the hacker extradited from Romania.

Russ

07-26-2016, 07:21 AM

Can you comment on Krauthammer's theory?

About Krauthammer's theory, I think its possible but no more possible than a thousand other theories. I could see Putin wanting to help Trump because he can deal with him and maybe because he thinks Trump won't support NATO, but I could also see Putin wanting to help Hillary because he can buy her with a few million check to the Clinton Foundation.

Overall, I think its actually a private hacker or group of hackers from Eastern Europe or from Russia. I'm surprised Krauthammer put forward this theory, it's not really his style.

CSM

07-26-2016, 07:28 AM

Well, it seems to me that many different countries try to influence US elections. Wouldn't surprise me if Russia/Putin did hack then release the emails. It does make me wonder what kind of influence peddling went on and probably still is going on through the Clinton Foundation.

Kathianne

07-26-2016, 11:42 AM

About Krauthammer's theory, I think its possible but no more possible than a thousand other theories. I could see Putin wanting to help Trump because he can deal with him and maybe because he thinks Trump won't support NATO, but I could also see Putin wanting to help Hillary because he can buy her with a few million check to the Clinton Foundation.

Overall, I think its actually a private hacker or group of hackers from Eastern Europe or from Russia. I'm surprised Krauthammer put forward this theory, it's not really his style.

He didn't put it forward, it was reported that DNC was hacked months and months ago. It was traced back to Russia, but not exactly where. Without names or such, we had an IP here that went to Kremlin. So yeah, seems pretty standard for Russians to to try and find stuff here, even on messageboards through 'above board' means, so it's not surprising they use hackers for more important sources.

Black Diamond

07-26-2016, 11:47 AM

He didn't put it forward, it was reported that DNC was hacked months and months ago. It was traced back to Russia, but not exactly where. Without names or such, we had an IP here that went to Kremlin. So yeah, seems pretty standard for Russians to to try and find stuff here, even on messageboards through 'above board' means, so it's not surprising they use hackers for more important sources.
Krauthammer tacitly or not so tacitly said Putin wants Trump to win and leaked the emails so they can together destroy or weaken NATO.
I agree with Russ that it's a wild theory for krauthammer to even be parroting.

Kathianne

07-26-2016, 11:50 AM

Krauthammer tacitly or not so tacitly said Putin wants Trump to win and leaked the emails so they can together destroy or weaken NATO.
I agree with Russ that it's a wild theory for krauthammer to even be parroting.
Well that idea came from the Clinton campaign and with the other already known, not so far out there. Then again, one doesn't know what they may or may not release down the line-hacked Trump tax returns? Who knows what else? Could well blow the whole mess into a broad attempt to make our bad situation worse.

It was the keyboards that gave them away. Russian hackers, typing on keyboards configured in Cyrillic and doing it in a time zone consistent with Moscow, created the “eloquent” code that breached the computers of the Democratic National Committee (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/democratic-national-committee.htm), according to a top analyst who investigated the hack.

“This was absolutely not an amateur operation … When you look at the totality of all those pieces and you put them together, it kind of paints a really good picture of who the actor was,” Michael Buratowski, the senior vice president of cybersecurity services at Fidelis Cybersecurity, told ABC News Monday. “I come from a law enforcement background, and it’s [about being] beyond a reasonable doubt. And I would say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt … I’m very confident that the malware that we looked at [was from] Russian actors.”

“When we looked at the malware, we found that it was very, very eloquent in its design as well as its functionality — very advanced, not something that script user or lower level hacker would be able to really generate or customize,” he said.

Buratowski said IP addresses linked to the attack were associated with Russian servers. A U.S. official said that it appeared that the hackers never worked on Russian holidays.

And not least to consider, Buratowski said, was the target and timing of the WikiLeaks posting (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448)on Friday — which made public 20,000 emails from the pilfered computers.

“We know for a fact that the malicious actors were in there and had access to this data for some time,” he said. “The timing of the release of information from WikiLeaks (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/iraq/wikileaks.htm) is very suspect. When you look at it — it was released right before the [Democratic] convention — you have to question what the motivation was behind that.”

Buratowski’s firm was one of three independent cybersecurity firms brought in by another firm, Crowdstrike, to analyze parts of malware that infected computers belonging to the Democratic National Committee. Last month Crowdstrike, which was first to analyze the attack, fingered two Russian hacker groups (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/) that the firm said were working for two rival Russian intelligence agencies.

Crowdstrike has already tied one of the hacking teams to a series of attacks on unclassified U.S. government networks (http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-hackers-white-house-system-months-officials/story?id=30146688) last year.
“This shows you espionage has now moved off the just physical realm of recruiting spies and getting information. It’s now through cyber means,” Dmitri Alperovitch, a co-founder of Crowdstrike, told ABC News in June.

Presidential candidates and campaigns have been “a traditional target of Russian intelligence for 100 years, but now [Russia is] doing it for cyber," he said.
Fidelis and another firm, Mandiant, said last month they agreed that Russia state actors appeared to be to blame for the DNC hack. Buratowski said his firm was given only a portion of the code and therefore could not say if other actors were involved.

Today the FBI confirmed it was investigating (http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-confirms-investigation-massive-hack-dnc/story?id=40855489) the breach. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the committee was briefed by the intelligence community on the hack. He said the committee will “continue to seek further information from the [intelligence community] as to the origin of any attack and a potential connection to Russia or another state sponsor.”

Despite the confident reports from the several respected cybersecurity firms, cybersecurity expert Kenneth Geers said he's cautious about blaming the Russians so squarely. Attribution in the case of cyber attacks is notoriously difficult to nail down.
...

When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared.

Five years later, Putin may be seeking revenge against Clinton. At least that’s the implication of the view among some cybersecurity experts that Russia was behind the recent hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email server, which has sowed confusion and dissent at the Democratic National Convention and undercut Clinton’s goal of party unity.While Donald Trump’s budding bromance with Vladimir Putin is well known — the two men have exchanged admiring words about each other and called for improved relations between Washington and Moscow — Putin’s hostility towards Clinton draws less attention.

There has been an apparent breakthrough related to the hack of the Democratic National Committee. TheatConnect, a collection of cyber-security experts, has uncovered evidence indicating that Guccifer 2.0, the alleged Romanian hacker, is actually a propaganda effort created by the Russian government.If you haven’t been paying much attention to this story, you might want to start here (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/25/fbi-investigating-hack-of-dnc-emails/). Essentially there is technical evidence suggesting Russia is behind the DNC hack. However, one day after initial conclusions were announced (that Russia was responsible) a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 appeared online and claimed responsibility for the hack. Here’s what I wrote about Guccifer 2.0 yesterday:

And that’s really the question. Is Guccifer 2.0 really an independent Romanian hacker or just a distraction created by government backed Russian hackers as a way to politically launder this material. The Clinton camp thinks the answer is the latter and they may be right.

According to ThreatConnect, their investigation points to Guccifer 2.0 being Russian propaganda (https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/):

As we pointed out in our previous analysis, we conclude Guccifer 2.0 is an apparition created under a hasty Russian D&D campaign, which has clearly evolved into an Active Measures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures) Campaign. Those who are operating under the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter, WordPress and Email communications are likely made up a cadre of non-technical politruk attempting to establish “Guccifer 2.0” as a static fixture on the world stage along the likes of Manning, Assange or Snowden. Their use of Russian VPN services with French infrastructure may shed light on a method Russian intelligence operatives use — domestic services coupled with foreign infrastructure — to help hide their hand and deter any potential attribution to Russia…

Our research into Guccifer 2.0’s infrastructure further solidifies our assessment that the persona is a Russia-controlled platform that can act as a censored hacktivist. Moscow determines what Guccifer 2.0 shares and thus can attempt to selectively impact media coverage, and potentially the election, in a way that ultimately benefits their national objectives.

The Hill notes Guccifer 2.0 (or whoever is pretending to be him) has previously claimed (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/289296-guccifer-20-used-russian-language-vpns-to-leak-documents) not to speak any Russian, which makes it very difficult to explain how he signed up for Russian VPN services:

Guccifer 2.0 has long claimed to be Romanian. In an online chat interview with Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript), Guccifer 2.0 claimed not to know how to speak Russian. In it, Motherboard asked a question in Russian, and Guccifer replied “What’s this? Is it russian?”…
In the same interview, when forced to answered questions in Romanian, he used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believed he was using an online translator.

If you’re wondering why Russia would go through all this trouble to meddle in a U.S. election, I discussed one possible explanation here (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/26/is-the-dnc-leak-putins-idea-of-payback/).

Kathianne

07-27-2016, 01:42 AM

I've said a couple times now that my interest in this election has become more academic, I don't really have anything to win in this game. These emails bother me, as I think they should everyone.

This comes pretty close to my thinking, my arm just isn't into writing long posts right now. ;)

So Now the Russians Are a Threat by DAVID FRENCH July 26, 2016 5:25 PM

I must admit that it’s a little bit amusing reading the Left after the Wikileaks DNC hack. Huffington Post right now (Tuesday afternoon) is awash in hysterical anti-Putin headlines, declaring the hack to be “worse than Watergate.” Over at Slate, Isaac Chotiner asks if the DNC hack is an “act of war.” (No, it’s an intelligence operation, not an air raid.) And now there’s suspicion that more revelations may be on the way. The panic is palpable.

It’s hard not to resist schadenfreude, but we must. After all, this is the same progressive movement that mocked Mitt Romney’s accurate declaration of Russia’s ambitions and intentions during the 2012 election. But now that the DNC is under siege, we face a national emergency. Better late than never, I suppose. On the list of threats to our national interests, I’d rank the DNC hack well below Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, annexation of the Crimea, threats against NATO-allied Baltic states, and aggressive assertions of power in the Middle East, but meddling in American presidential politics is serious nonetheless.

And it’s a matter of concern that the Putin government may view Trump favorably enough to intervene on his behalf to humiliate his opponent. It’s fair to wonder, what does Putin either like about Trump or hate about Hillary? Or is Putin merely seeking to cause chaos, and the DNC servers were a target of opportunity? Spare me any explanation that Putin would ratchet up international tensions merely because Trump “respects” him or has said nice things about him. Putin is a cold-eyed calculator who plays an old-school great power political game — from the line of thinking that says that nations don’t have “friends,” only interests. If Putin is intervening in the American election, he’s pursuing Russian interests, not Trump interests. But why?

Add the Wikileaks data dump to interesting research indicating that at least some online pro-Trump Twitter accounts appear to be Russian in origin (this isn’t news to those of us who’ve been targeted by the alt-right — it’s plain that many of those accounts aren’t American), and the concern should only grow. Again, I don’t claim to know why Putin seems to be intervening to aid Trump, only that for now that appears to be the Russian strategy. If the goal is sheer disruption, however, then he could shift his fire at any time. If the goal is to truly aid Trump, I’d be surprised if this was the last Russian surprise of the election.

But at least now — on this one thing — most progressives and conservatives are united. Putin’s Russia is, in fact, a geopolitical threat.

jimnyc

07-28-2016, 06:36 AM

Not to diminish anything, just saw this on FB and thought it was hilarious, and kinda true. :)

http://i.imgur.com/g0wfSCx.jpg

DLT

07-28-2016, 12:21 PM

Krauthammer seemed to be pedaling a theory yesterday that Putin wants Trump to win so they can work together in destroying or at least weakening NATO.

Well....there's that.

And then....there's this. Which just confirms what I suspected all along.

It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7)

jimnyc

07-28-2016, 12:27 PM

Well....there's that.

And then....there's this. Which just confirms what I suspected all along.

It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7)

What was it you suspected all along? That Russia was hiring trolls? I'm confused.

DLT

07-28-2016, 12:29 PM

What was it you suspected all along? That Russia was hiring trolls? I'm confused.

Well....yeah. The headline pretty much says it all. Why are you confused?

jimnyc

07-28-2016, 12:40 PM

Well....yeah. The headline pretty much says it all. Why are you confused?

Would just be odd, to me anyway, that someone here in the States suspected Russia of hiring trolls. But this technically isn't the first time I heard this. We had a similar discussion with a Russian member here awhile back, and someone brought up Russia having entire places setup in order to get some propaganda out there.

Not sure what anyone thinks having a bunch of trolls is going to do. Is there anyone really that weak, that they would change their vote in either direction, based on what a troll stated? Hell, I've seen trolls at many other places, even a few here at times, no matter what they may write - it wouldn't even make a blurb on what I may or may not vote on.

DLT

07-28-2016, 12:49 PM

Would just be odd, to me anyway, that someone here in the States suspected Russia of hiring trolls. But this technically isn't the first time I heard this. We had a similar discussion with a Russian member here awhile back, and someone brought up Russia having entire places setup in order to get some propaganda out there.

Not sure what anyone thinks having a bunch of trolls is going to do. Is there anyone really that weak, that they would change their vote in either direction, based on what a troll stated? Hell, I've seen trolls at many other places, even a few here at times, no matter what they may write - it wouldn't even make a blurb on what I may or may not vote on.

Yes, but what you are forgetting here is.....not everybody that posts on the internet is as savvy and informed about such things. It's all about creating a "perception"...ie symbolism over substance (The Clinton's Standard of No-Standards)....and it's all about pushing a meme and an image that the propagandists WANT to create.

jimnyc

07-28-2016, 01:17 PM

Yes, but what you are forgetting here is.....not everybody that posts on the internet is as savvy and informed about such things. It's all about creating a "perception"...ie symbolism over substance (The Clinton's Standard of No-Standards)....and it's all about pushing a meme and an image that the propagandists WANT to create.

True, true! But this election is weird. I can't imagine a single Hillary voter changing to Trump, based on trolling or memes. Even the other way, I couldn't imagine Trump voter going Hillary based on online crap either. It seemed like folks dug in their heels fairly early this year and not a whole lot is/was going to get people to change their minds.

But I have seen many of the memes across Facebook, where I had to turn around and correct that person, that the meme had no truth to it at all. Here's one from 2 days ago in fact. I suppose some folks do fall for this crap.

http://i.imgur.com/xnqtuMz.jpg

Gunny

07-28-2016, 05:53 PM

I think everyone's pretty much made up their minds at this point. The only ones I figure that have not are the ones deciding whether or not even bother to go vote.

I personally get tired of the stupid pics for everything. But that's just me.